DANIEL WHITENIGHT AND CONCETTA WHITENIGHT, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
INTERNATIONAL PATROL AND DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Whitenights appealed a judgment in their negligence action against a security company after a trial judge made derogatory comments about their evidence and theory of the case. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the judge's characterization of the plaintiffs' evidence as "ridiculous" and the attempted curative instruction prejudicially influenced the jury.
The court held that the judge's comments characterizing the plaintiffs' theory and evidence in a bad light, combined with the ambiguous and equally damaging curative instruction, constituted reversible error requiring a new trial.
[1] A trial judge's comments on the evidence or a party's theory of the case can unduly influence a jury and lead to erroneous conclusions.
[2] A judge's characterization of a party's evidence in a negative light, even if followed by a curative instruction, can constitute reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The status of a judge in the eyes of jurors results in his remarks having great influence upon them.”
Establishes the legal principle that judicial comments carry special weight with juries and can improperly influence their verdicts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel Whitenight was shot during an attempted robbery at an Eagle Family Discount Store. The perpetrator had also attempted to rob a nearby Chicken U…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Curative Jury Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Whitenights appeal a final judgment for International Patrol and Detective Agency, Inc. (International) in a tort action. We reverse.
Daniel Whitenight was shot during the attempted robbery of an Eagle Family Discount Store (Eagle Discount). The perpetrator had apparently attempted to rob a Chicken Unlimited near Eagle Discount on the same day, but abandoned the attempt when he saw an employee calling the police.
The Whitenights sued International for damages, their primary theory being that International was negligent in failing to provide a properly trained and uniformed security guard. The plaintiffs alleged that a uniformed guard would have provided a deterrent to the crime committed and prevented the shooting and injury.
During testimony about the deterrent effect of a uniform, the judge asked a witness: “That is a deterrent, that tie?” and the witness responded affirmatively. When testimony regarding the attempted robbery of the Chicken Unlimited was presented, apparently to demonstrate that the perpetrator committed crimes of opportunity from which he was easily deterred, the trial judge characterized the evidence, in front of the jury, as ridiculous. He also said, regarding the same evidence, “What difference does it make? Big deal.” During a bench conference regarding the evidence and the judge’s comments, plaintiff’s counsel was told by the judge that he was wasting the court’s and the jury’s time. At least one juror overheard some portion of that conversation.
The plaintiffs’ motion for mistrial was denied, but the court gave the following curative instruction with regard to his comment on a portion of the evidence relating to the Chicken Unlimited incident:
I point out to the jury that I may have used some words, I don’t know if I did or not, “That is ridiculous, there is no reason to put that in.”
It is my opinion. It had nothing to do with the case. We were talking about the picture itself. Whether the Chicken [sic] place was one block or three blocks away, to me it was ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the case at all. I do not want you to be influenced by that at all.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The Whitenights’ motion for new trial was denied. The Whitenights contend that the trial judge’s comments, and the attempt to cure them, prejudiced the plaintiffs’ case and warrants reversal. We agree.
The status of a judge in the eyes of jurors results in his remarks having great influence upon them. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Wiesenfeld Warehouse Co., 316 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). As a result, inappropriate, confusing or misleading comments on the evidence or a party’s theory of the case can often lead a jury to erroneous conclusions. Gendzier v. Bielecki, 97 So. 2d 604 (Fla.1957). There can be no question that the judge’s comments in this case characterized the Whitenights’ theory and evidence in a bad light. Moreover, the attempt to cure that characterization compounded the error. The curative instruction could easily have been understood by the jury as an instruction that they not be influenced by the Whitenights’ evidence, as opposed to the judge’s comments. The prejudicial comments, and the ambiguous and equally damaging attempt to cure, require reversal. Gendzier; Seaboard Coast Line Railroad; see also Carr v. Crosby Builders Supply Co., 283 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Accordingly, the cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lane Vaughn v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 907 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…them that future improper tactics will cause counsel to be rebuked before the jury. This has a magical effect!”); Medina v. Variety Children’s Hosp., 438 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In Whitenight v. International Patrol & Detective Agency, Inc., 483 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986), for example, among other comments made, the trial judge indicated that plaintiffs counsel was wasting the court’s and the jury’s time, and the comment was overheard by at least one juror. The…
-
Reyes v. State, 547 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…timates his opinion as to the weight, character, or credibility of any evidence adduced.” Lester v. State, 37 Fla. 382, 387-88, 20 So. 232, 234 (Fla.1896); Peek v. State, 488 So. 2d 52 (Fla.1986); Whitenight v. Int’l Patrol & Detective Agency, Inc., 483 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986); Keane v. State, 357 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Abrams v. State, 326 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). In the case before us, the trial judge departed from his impartial role and commented…
-
Rivas v. Nationwide Pers. Sec. Corp. & Arthur Hinton, 559 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…v. State, 446 So. 2d 1038, 1042 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 229, 83 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984); Little v. Bankers Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 369 So. 2d 637, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); cf. Whitenight v. International Patrol & Detective Agency, Inc., 483 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1333 (Fla.1986). Moreover, there is no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing an interpreter, as requested, inasmuch as the two witnesses in question testified satisfactorily in English;…
Authorities Cited
- Gendzier v. Bielecki, 97 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1957)
- Carr v. Crosby Builders Supply Co., Inc., 283 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Wiesenfeld Warehouse Co., 316 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)